↓ Skip to main content

Caring for quality of care: symbolic violence and the bureaucracies of audit

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Caring for quality of care: symbolic violence and the bureaucracies of audit
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0006-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan Emmerich, Deborah Swinglehurst, Jo Maybin, Sophie Park, Sally Quilligan

Abstract

This article considers the moral notion of care in the context of Quality of Care discourses. Whilst care has clear normative implications for the delivery of health care it is less clear how Quality of Care, something that is centrally involved in the governance of UK health care, relates to practice. This paper presents a social and ethical analysis of Quality of Care in the light of the moral notion of care and Bourdieu's conception of symbolic violence. We argue that Quality of Care bureaucracies show significant potential for symbolic violence or the domination of practice and health care professionals. This generates problematic, and unintended, consequences that can displace the goals of practice. Quality of Care bureaucracies may have unintended consequences for the practice of health care. Consistent with feminist conceptions of care, Quality of Care 'audits' should be reconfigured so as to offer a more nuanced and responsive form of evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 3%
United States 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 61 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Lecturer 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 9%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,431,639
of 24,458,924 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#455
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,767
of 269,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,458,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.